'No Arbitrariness': Kerala High Court Upholds Lakshadweep Admin Decision To Close Dairy Farms, Modify Mid Day Meals

The Kerala High Court while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) assailing the reforms introduced by the new Lakshadweep Administration, reiterated that a writ court can only consider a policy matter if there was any arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness on the part of the authority while exercising the power conferred under law.Dismissing the PIL, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly remarked: "Taking into account the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances available in the case at hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality in the policy decision taken by the Lakshadweep administration in the matter of the closure of the cattle farm, and the modification of the midday meal scheme provided to the children of the island."It noted that the decision to close dairy farms was taken in view of financial considerations and the mid-day meal menu was though modified, did not compromise with the nutrition content required for children.The petition was filed by one Ajmal Ahmed R., an Advocate by profession and a member of the Executive Committee of the Lakshadweep Bar Association. He sought to quash the order dated May 21, passed by the Lakshadweep Administration ordering the Director of the Department of Animal Husbandry to close all the dairy farms run by the Department and to dispose of the bulls, calves etc. immediately.The PIL also sought to quash minutes of the UT Level Steering Cum Monitoring Committee and District Task Force on Midday meal scheme dated January 27, whereby the existing menu was modified by deleting meat and chicken and including fruits and dry fruits.The petitioner was concerned that the measures implemented by the Administrator of the Lakshadweep would bring misery and suffering to the people of the Union Territory by destroying the culture and ecology of the island.Contentions Raised:Advocates Peeyus A Kottam and Hrithwik D Namboothiri appearing for the petitioners alleged that the reforms were being implemented by the Administrator in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and even without allowing the islanders to raise their objections. Additionally, it was contended that these unilateral reforms were capricious and arbitrary and had interfered with the life, liberty and freedom of the islanders. On the same note, the petitioner argued that these reforms were going to be implemented without publishing the draft regulation in the local language, deliberately to deprive the islanders the opportunity to understand such drafts, thereby depriving their right to raise their voice against such movement. It was further averred that the Administration was 'silently implementing draconian measures' during the lockdown, fully knowing that during such time the public will not protest against such illegal actions. In fact, when protests were raised in this regard, such demonstrators were arrested and thrown behind bars for allegedly violating the Covid-19 protocol, the petitioner submitted.On such grounds, the petitioner argued that the Administrator was attempting to impose his hidden and mischievous personal agenda, which is in violation of Articles 15, 16, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India The case of the petitioner also touched upon the aspect that the Animal Husbandry Department had started farms to educate the people on the islands in farming and other allied activities. Therefore, the attempt of the Administrator to close down the farms was alleged to be against the interest of the residents of the Union Territory, particularly since the decision was taken without any discussion, thereby making such direction arbitrary and illegal.Regarding the alteration of the midday meal menu, the petitioner argued that no reasons were assigned to delete chicken and meat from the scheme. According to him, chicken and meat were included in the midday meal programme taking into account the food habits of the residents of Lakshadweep. It was also contended that the meat and chicken were included to attract more children to attend schools, apart from the nutrition in the meal served to them.Central Government Counsel Hari Rao and Senior Central Government Counsel Manu S represented the respondents and vehemently denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner. They submitted that although meat and chicken were excluded, fish, which is commonly available in the island, was included on more days, apart from egg, fruits and dry fruits. It was also submitted that the midday meal scheme was introduced at the national level, and relied upon the midday meal scheme introduced in Goa, West Bengal, and Puducherry. The respondents submitted that the reforms were introduced after careful consideration of the National programme for serving mid-day meals and that there was no hidden agenda or malicious intention on the part of the...

'No Arbitrariness': Kerala High Court Upholds Lakshadweep Admin Decision To Close Dairy Farms, Modify Mid Day Meals

Hannah M Varghese

Tags